Seal v. Gallion

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM: Accordingly, this action will be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, suasponte, for want of prosecution. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). A separate judgment will enter. Signed by District Judge J Ronnie Greer on 1/20/2015. (c/m to pro se plaintiff at last known address)(RLC, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT GREENEVILLE

DANIEL WAYNE SEAL,
Plaintiff,
v.
LT. BUTCH GALLION,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No.: 2:14-cv-121-JRG-DHI

MEMORANDUM

This pro se Hawkins County jail inmate filed this pro se civil rights action under
42 U.S.C. § 1983. A copy of an order entered in this lawsuit and a service packet was
mailed to plaintiff at the address he listed as his current address in his complaint but these
documents were returned to the Court by the postal authorities more than ten days ago,
with the face of the envelope marked, "RTS, Return to Sender- Refused-Unable to
Forward” (Doc. 5).
By separate letter, the Hawkins County Jail Administrator has informed the Court
that plaintiff was released from that facility on June 2, 2014, and has attached the
booking sheet for the Court’s review (Doc. 6). The information contained in the booking
sheet jibes with that furnished in the letter. Obviously, plaintiff has failed to provide the
Court with notice of his address change and, without his current address, neither the
Court nor defendants can communicate with him regarding his case.

Moreover, the only relief plaintiff sought in the complaint was injunctive relief,
i.e., to be transferred to a state prison and for the medical and dental needs of state
inmates at the jail to be met by the authorities. But since plaintiff has been released from
confinement, a transfer to another facility is not feasible. Also, aside from any issue
regarding plaintiff’s standing to assert the rights of others prisoners, meeting the needs of
state inmates housed in the Hawkins County jail would provide him no benefit because he
is not presently confined in that institution and there is no indication that he will be
imprisoned in there in the future. See City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102
(1983) (noting that “[p]ast exposure to illegal conduct does not in itself show a present
case or controversy regarding injunctive relief ... if unaccompanied by any continuing,
present adverse effects”) (quoting O'Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 495-96 (1974)).
Thus, this action solely for injunctive relief would be MOOT, even if plaintiff had
notified the Court of his new address. See Kensu v. Haigh, 87 F.3d 172, 175 (6th Cir.
1996).
Accordingly, this action will be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, sua
sponte, for want of prosecution. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
A separate judgment will enter.

ENTER:

s/J. RONNIE GREER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2